中觀論疏 5.5

5.5

From 'Within that which has a mark or is markless' downward is the second part, which specifically refutes the characterizing mark, explaining the second half of the preceding verse. The first half explains that in the two gates of existence and non-existence, a mark cannot be found; the second half subsumes all dharmas. That a mark does not reside in that which has a mark has two meanings: first, originally it already possesses the mark, so it does not need another mark. Just as a pillar originally possesses the round mark, it does not further require a round mark to characterize the pillar. Second, if originally possessing a round mark it further required another mark, one pillar would have two roundnesses, and one space would have two marks. If one pillar had two roundnesses, one roundness could also have two pillars. Furthermore, since there would be two marks, there would be a third, and so on ad infinitum. That a mark does not reside in that which is markless also has two meanings: first, since it originally lacks a mark, if one then brought a mark to characterize it, it would ultimately not adhere of itself. Second, it is solely the absence of form that constitutes the entity of space; since there is no mark of the absence of form, there is no entity of space, and the subsequent mark would have nothing to characterize. The meaning of this verse is deep and its words far-reaching; it explains that conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are both interrogated in this manner. All sentient beings assume that conditioned and unconditioned dharmas each have marks and therefore generate a mind that grasps at marks; generating a mind that grasps at marks is the root of afflictions, and so they give rise to afflictions; because of afflictions, there are karma and suffering. Now, interrogating that conditioned and unconditioned marks cannot be found, there are no marks whatsoever, and thus one does not generate a mind that grasps at marks, immediately obtaining liberation. The prose commentary explains the first half in four sections: first, explaining that a mark does not reside in that which is markless; next, explaining that a mark does not reside in that which has a mark; then, re-explaining that a mark does not reside in that which is markless; fourth, the conclusion. In the verse, it first explains that it does not reside in that which has a mark. Now, first explaining that which is markless has two meanings: first, it is the opponent's original tenet, which originally established that it is first markless and subsequently a mark comes to characterize it. Second, it is to complete the preceding verse: taking horns and a hump as the entity of an ox, if there are no such marks, there is no ox to be characterized. Next, it explains that a mark does not reside in that which has a mark. Adducing water and fire: the previous refutation concerned sentient beings, whereas this refutation concerns non-sentient beings, merely adducing them interchangeably. From 'Furthermore' downward, it re-refutes that a mark does not reside in that which is markless. First, it states the absence of a cause; next, it explains the absence of a cause. Stating that 'without a dharma there is a mark': since it is said to be markless, there is no characterized, and the characterized is the cause of the characterizing mark. The mark and the characterized are constantly interdependent: previously it explained the absence of the characterized; here it explains the absence of the characterizing mark. Because there is no dharma of the characterized upon which to depend, there is no characterizing mark. From 'Therefore' downward is the fourth section, adducing the verse to conclude. As for 'Because the dharma of the mark does not exist', this is the fourth verse, refuting through the mutual dependence of mark and characterized. The first half explains that the characterized depends on the mark; since the mark is non-existent, the characterized is non-existent. The second half explains that the mark depends on the characterized; since the characterized is non-existent, the mark is non-existent. This also explains that the essential mark of the entity and the characterized are mutually dependent; because the essential mark of the entity is non-existent, the characterized is non-existent. Second, if one applies the refutation of mutual dependence to indicative marks, the preceding three verses are called separate refutations, and this single verse is called an intertwined refutation. That the preceding three are separate refutations means: the first two verses directly refute the characterized, and the next verse directly refutes the characterizing mark; now, this single verse refutes both the characterizing and characterized together, hence it is called intertwined. Question: Previously it refuted the characterized and subsequently refuted the characterizing mark; why does it now first explain that because the mark is non-existent the characterized is non-existent, and subsequently explain that because the characterized is non-existent the mark is non-existent? Answer: This is refutation following immediate momentum. The third verse directly refuted the mark, so riding the momentum of refuting the mark, it immediately refutes the characterized; the second half rides the first half's refutation of the characterized to still refute the mark, and therefore now there is no mark. The fifth verse concludes and subsumes all dharmas in refutation. The first half concludes the preceding; the second half subsumes all dharmas. 'Therefore now there is no mark' concludes the second half of the fourth verse; 'nor is there that which is characterized' concludes the first half of the fourth verse. This is a chain-link mutually generating sequence, hence rising from below to above. Subsuming all dharmas in the second half means: the preceding refutation of mark and characterized having been exhaustive, it now uses mark and characterized to subsume all dharmas. All dharmas do not go beyond the essential mark of the entity and its characterized, or the indicative mark and its characterized. Since mark and characterized are both non-existent, all dharmas are completely non-existent. The prose commentary states 'causes and conditions, root and branches': some say that dependent on the mark there is the characterized, and dependent on the characterized there is the mark, hence they are called causes and conditions. The characterized is the root and the mark is the branches, hence they are called root and branches. Furthermore, because they are mutually dependent, they are mutually root and branches. We now say that 'causes and conditions' is a designation for the reasons; 'root and branches' is an appellation for the beginning and end. Throughout the chapter, from beginning to end, seeking this mark and characterized, they are ultimately unobtainable. Smoke also has a mark: during the day, fire is the characterized and smoke is the mark; at night, smoke is the characterized and fire is the mark. Making this statement has two meanings: first, to show that the mark and the characterized are indeterminate; second, to show that the mark and the characterized subsume all dharmas.